legal_enterprise_customer_onboarding_loop

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool routes through a dispatcher, but does not reveal side effects, read-only vs destructive nature, authentication specifics, rate limits, or error behaviors. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, using only three sentences plus a brief parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words and front-loads the key action. However, the parameter descriptions are inline rather than structured, which slightly reduces clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity as a legal onboarding loop and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of the loop, expected inputs or outputs, or success criteria. The output schema exists but is not included, and the description does not compensate for this lack of context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It provides brief explanations: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This adds some value over the bare schema (which only shows type and default), but lacks details on expected format, examples, or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as running a specific legal domain agent action, but does not elaborate on what the action actually does beyond its name. It uses the verb 'Run' and provides the action name, but fails to distinguish it from similar sibling tools like legal_partnership_onboarding_loop or legal_vendor_onboarding_legal_loop.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions. Among many sibling legal tools, an agent would not know when to pick this one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.